Rep. Bart Stupak, the Blue Dog Democrat who was the hold out vote for the health care reform legislation has announced that he will not be seeking re-election. Readers will remember that he is the congressman who was speaking on the floor of the house when he was called a ‘baby killer.’

Bart Stupak probably wants to spend more time with his family rather than deal with the stress of re-election. He was also being targetted for defeat by the Tea Party, according to the Washington Times:TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan tells the Associated Press he’ll retire from Congress rather than seek a 10th term this year.

Stupak has drawn stinging criticism from opponents of the recently enacted health care overhaul after leading a bloc of anti-abortion Democrats whose last-minute support was crucial to its approval by the House.

The Tea Party Express is calling for his defeat at rallies in his sprawling northern Michigan district this week.

But Stupak tells the AP the attacks didn’t influence his decision and he could win re-election if he tried.

He plans to announce his decision at a 12:30 p.m. news conference at Northern Michigan University in Marquette.

He says he wants to spend more time with his family and start a new career after 18 years in Congress.

This sort of explains the caliber of people we get running for elected office. Of course, Stupak PO’ed the right and the left. That will teach him to act on his own sense of integrity! [sarcasm alert]

20 Thoughts to “Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Not to Seek Re-election”

  1. marinm

    Ding, dong the witch is gone!

  2. I think Bart Stupak is probably one of the most principled men in Congress. I have some serious disagreement with his politics since I am pro-choice but I have to respect him for standing up for what he believes. His goal in congress was to implement a health care program. In fact, he didn’t accept the congressional package during the 18 years he was in offic.e

    Still, he held out on that anti-abortion language in the form of an executive order. That is putting principle above politics. So few of our elected officials have that much personal integrity.

  3. Rick Bentley

    I don’t accept that he did what he did out of integrity. I think that he took political kickbacks for his vote and that the executive order is window dressing. It’s the kind of half-assed political compromise that does nothing for his “cause” – it can be undone at will.

  4. Emma

    Agree with Rick–Stupak had every intention of voting for HCR, but he needed political cover for his many pro-life constituents. The EO gave him just enough thin cover, but his constituents are still pissed.

  5. Politics continues to make strange bedfellows. Although I’m a male, I am pro-choice. Women, not the government or partisan politics has a role in their uterus. But to be polemic, I would say that an executive order is hardly worth the paper it is written on. It is the most easily overturned regulating document. While he claims he could easily win again, the proof of the pudding would have been in the eating. Now the Democrats are caught with their drawers down and regardless of who wins his seat, the Tea Party wins.

  6. marinm

    Must… resist.. agreeing… with.. Mr. Harris’ arguement..

    Can’t. 100% agreed. Well stated.

    I disagree with Stupak’s principles as he sold them off for some airport contracts and a piece of paper not worthy of holding fecal matter. He caved and you could make the arguement he was bought and paid for.

  7. Emma

    I think Stupak already saw which way the political winds were blowing for him, and decided to bow out gracefully instead. i got the impression his district was not favorable to HCR.

  8. Juturna

    From what I’ve heard on Fox & Friends not one citizen in the US was for HCR except for the current Democrat’s in office. Therefore, I should conclude that in the next few years not a single Democrat will be elected?

    Everyone’s district was against it according to Doocy and Carlson. Everyone. Should be an interesting few years. Not one of those politicians for or against HCR give a whit about us whether they pretended to care for the health care or if they were protecting us from bad bad people. Both sides are useless at this point.

    Although, I was impressed with the F&F angryfolk this week. They were upset that unemployment benefits were stopped. And they were momentarily concerned for the miners in WVA. Before they went over to Robin Quivers that is to bash Obama some more……..

    Speaking of which, anyone for restoring the mine regulation improvements that were underway before 2004? One was improved rescue teams…..

  9. Interesting Jutura.

    All I am seeing is that Stupak is a low unprincipled dog but with no proof. No indication why that is being said.

    Some of you all are really jaded….thinking that everything is for a political pay off. Would be curious as to who is seen as a principled politician? Bachmann?

    I wouldn’t vote for Stupak. Every once in a while though I like to step back and give people credit for having principles even if they don’t agree with my own.

    So it must be that Stupak is a democrat, voted for HCR and that trumps holding up all of congress?

    Executive orders are easily overturned but this one wouldn’t have been. Furthermore, and I keep saying….there is that rascally Hyde Amendment. Solid as a rock……

  10. Juturna is right. No one in the United States likes HCR.

  11. marinm

    Moon, that’s easy. Rep. Ron Paul.

  12. I beg to differ. He might be honorable but he almost has a cult like following. I don’t know about his honor. He certainly doesn’t stand out.

  13. Wolverine

    While he was still holding out on the pro-life issue, Stupak was also apparently under a threat of being primaried from within the Democratic Party. I ran into the ads while hunting for background on Stupak. The ads featured a woman who was calling for Dem voters to send a real “liberal” to Congress…. namely her. Can’t recall her name. I’m not sure if this was an independent initiative by this woman or involved a wider game to put pressure on Stupak to cave. I have heard that a number of the Blue Dog holdouts were threatened by influential members of the party with being primaried if they didn’t vote for HCR.

  14. Wolverine

    Got it. Her name is Connie Saltonstall, a former teacher and Charlevoix County Commissioner. She began a primary campaign to oust Stupak from the Democratic ticket and promptly got the support of NOW, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL.

    While much has been made of the nasty and threatening phone calls and e-mails Stupak received after he voted for the HCR bill, it turns out that, while he was still holding out on the pro-life issue, he was getting the same kind of phone calls and e-mails from the pro-choice side. Looks like what we have here is a case of equal opportunity hate mail.

  15. I don’t doubt that for a second re Stupak getting nasty pro-choice emails. And he should have gotten email from that community. However, in the interest of fairness, is decent guy being turned out to pasture? Not talking about voting the way we want, I am talking about not being a pimp. Sometimes its hard to separate.

    I have not heard of Connie Saltonstll. If she is pro choice candidate, I would at least have to give her a 2nd glance. That takes a certain amount of bravery also.

  16. It bothers me a great deal that nearly everything in America is being determined on the basis of abortion. There is something fundamental, however, about who gets to make that decision that seems to trump so many others.

    However, lining up the issues seems to go one way 95% of the time. I can screen the pro choice issues and tell you about 100 other issues. There are a few exceptions. Chuck Colgan would be one notable exception. There are others, but not many.

  17. Emma

    Abortion is the law of the land, and that will not change. It’s trucked out every few years as a wedge issue, one side or the other is temporarily placated, but nothing substantially changes. I wish people would wake up to this manipulation.

  18. Juturna

    Agree Emma. It has become a way to define a persons moral stance which as we’ve seen can be greatly misleading. I don’t like it, I don’t like paying for it but it doesn’t dictate my vote and it is the “rule of law”.

  19. It is very misleading. I have to disagree that it is trucked out every few years. It is always in the background and it a flag ship issue on anything political.

    Emma, I wish it were just trotted out every few years. And it is manipulative. No argument. And every time I ease my requirements on candidates being pro choice, I am sorry. I run in to some meat head who wants to vote against license plates or something, which is first amendment issue. That is just how pervasive and pernicious this issue is. This past legislative session in the state is text book illustration.

  20. PWC Taxpayer

    Stupak withdrew because he violated his democratic, republican and independent base – his money and his manpower dried up. Then it became clear that he was incompetent and was taken in by the big dogs of the Chicago mafia that is running the country today. That caused other independents and republicans to abandon him. He was marked and he knows it. With 18 years in the Congress this guy had no effective seniority, no effective influence (not now) and no support. Seeking time with family is the cheap excuse of the liar. This guy was a career politican. He is in for a rude and overdue awakening as the perks of office disappear.

    Seeking assurances regarding health care and no public funding of abortion was an easy compromise. Obamcare was never going to outlaw abortion (which is now a civil right). That Democrats could not go there shows how far their bipartisanship goes — NOT. It has cost Stupak and will cost many other members as well.

Comments are closed.